Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Helen J. Frye

Can we stop making subpages for this judge. This is the second time. And both times have been pointless as the information from the FJC was incorporated when the article was created, as indicated in the reference section. Please take the time to request deletion of the page and prevent the bot from doing this a third time (or for that matter any judge bio that already uses the FJC as a source). Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ditto for James Alger Fee, William G. East, Matthew Deady, Charles B. Bellinger, and Robert S. Bean. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be as quick as I can about reviewing an deleting these subpages. However, please note that subpages were initially being created in mainspace, and are now being created in Polbot's user space (which should be of no distress to anyone). The thousands of badly needed pages being created surely outweighs the handful that already had the information being imported. By the way, if you are interested in helping bring these federal judge articles up to the gold standard, please join Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/United States federal judges! Cheers - bd2412 T 22:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe all of those are above the stub level (as are almost alll the federal and state court judge article I started, numbering around 100), and Deady is at the GA level with FA within reach. I might join, but I have a problem with the mass FJC attribution tagging that seems related to the project. As I have pointed out before, if the info is already sourced from the FJC, the template must not be there. Wikipedia has no business promoting the FJC or any other resource. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the FJC bio tag is not to promote the FJC, but to acknowledge that information has been copied from it (which may not be the case for Deady, but is for many other articles), and at the same time to note that FJC entries are in the public domain (i.e., the copying is fine and legit). Frankly, I'd rather have the FJC bio tag in the Deady article as well, because at the end of the day, there should be as great a consistency as possible in the presentation of these 3,200+ federal judge bios. The 'model' format for these articles is one of the things I want to hammer out through the project. bd2412 T 22:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, it violates WP:EL, as you were informed. Also, if you were to incorporate it as an inline footnote, then there would be consistency, wouldn't there? Plus, ideally, we do not just copy and paste, even if it is PD. Otherwise there is no point in having an article, people can just go to the FJC (we also try not to rely on a single source for articles {{Onesource}}). Plus, on those where you or others added it where it didn't belong, the attribution and acknowledgment already existed in the refs section, plus the information was not simply copied, and in some instances the same information was acquired elsewhere through older sources. I'd focus more on recommended sections and where to find sources, not on trying to force attribution templates in contravention of existing Wikipedia-wide guidelines. Also, William Ball Gilbert now has the same problem as those above. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Add Ancer L. Haggerty, Susan P. Graber, Michael Robert Hogan. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The WP:EL violation would not be problematic if there were some other way of acknowledging that the initial material was copied from a public domain source. We can easily reword the template to explicitly reflect that this is an advisory note, rather than just a link to source (i.e. This article incorporates text about [Judge X] from the the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, a public domain publication of the Federal Judicial Center) - which is necessary to the extent that the GFDL would be invalid for copyright misuse if we tried to claim rights to work in the public domain - a legal requirement that surely trumps stylistic concerns. bd2412 T 01:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You are not getting it. Once it has been incorporated (i.e. only the non-copyrighted facts still exist and may have come from ANOTHER source) then end of story. period, its over, that fat lady has sung. That's what happened with the articles I've listed above. That means, no need for the template, period. Which is what EL talks about. For those that you are making with POLBOT here, not a problem, until the article is re-written. In general, see Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica for how that is dealt with (notice the "significant amounts of imported text appear in an article"=verbatium, that is not the facts incorporated; and the location of where the template goes, the refs section). Additionally, for most of those I've listed above, I wrote the initial article, and I didn't copy and paste the FJC info, so your premise has a problem there too. Add with Deady who I didn't start, and which you feel needs the template, compare the initial entry to the FJC entry where I hope you can realize the FJC was obviously not used (i.e. your "some other way of acknowledging that the initial material" concern). Aboutmovies (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No one is forcing you to add the template to the handful of articles to which you refer. So we'll have ~ 3,195 federal judge articles that have it, and a handful that don't. Of course, to the extent that Deady's article, or any of the others, fails to include information from the FJC database, the article is incomplete. For example, when was James Alger Fee formally nominated to the District of Oregon? bd2412 T 05:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, let me back off from the above and say this: I'm not looking for a fight. I'd like to see us have a good article on every United States federal judge that has served, and FJC is a reliable and accessible source of some core information on every one of those judges, information that every article should have (albeit in a much expanded and supplemented form). My preference is to have the FJC template in all of those articles because it neatly serves a bunch of functions, but I'm open to having another way to do that. My first order of business, however, is seeing that these several thousand stubs get made in a way that future holistic changes can easily be made across the board. bd2412 T 05:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you are talking about with your first response above. My objection to the template dates back to my removal of one of the templates you added a couple months ago to a judge that already had it as a source. You then questioned the removal despite being provided the rule you claimed ignorance of in the edit summary removing the template. That is really annoying when you provide a link to a rule and someone doesn't take the time to read it. That's kinda of the point for all these shortcuts we have. And then when provided a more direct link you say you'll look into it? What's to look into? The guideline is pretty straightforward. If its a reference, don't put it in the ELs. So its not about me being forced to add it, its about others improperly (as its against the MOS which means it should never pass GA let alone FA) adding the template. As to Fee, what does the date of his nomination have to do with the template and FJC? Or do you mean the un-copyrightable date (its a fact) he was appointed that may have come from the FJC (its available in other locations as well)?

Now, I'm not objecting to the template per se. Its the placement in the EL sections of articles that already use the un-copyrightable facts contained within the FJC (regardless of the PD status of the FJC) when they are already properly sourced to the FJC. But, if you want to have the template in the refs section, it needs to have the ability (see the {{gnis}} template) to provide a full citation, and not include the "attribution" text part, since it would at that point not be any different than the other sources used to create the article.

Side note, the bot needs some adjustments. Main space cats cannot be in user space, and all the user space versions are in main space cats. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, I'm the bot's operator. Creating subpages in userspace was an approved part of this bot's function. The mainspace categories in userspace are, however, indeed a problem; I am fixing them to say [[:Category...]] instead of [[Category...]], which should solve that problem. This bot places the {{FJC Bio}} tag in the "external links" section, not the "references" section. The FJC Bio tag is similar in this way to {{CongBio}}, {{Catholic}}, {{1911}}, etc., which have been used since 2003 without controversy; they're not designed to promote anything, but merely avoid plagiarism. As a side note, this talk page is for discussion of Polbot's activities, not for unrelated disputes. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Per Quadell's comment, I have moved this discussion from User talk:Polbot to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges. Complete edit history can be found at User talk:Polbot, but I trust all involved will find that the discussion has not been altered. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Quadell's point on Template:CongBio is actually more to the point than anything I've said, since Template:FJC Bio is directly based on the former, and its use is identical (see, e.g. Thomas Joseph Meskill and Abram B. Olin (where someone else added both tags), and John Sloss Hobart (where I added the FJC Bio tag, the CongBio already having been there). The CongBio tag appears in close to 10,000 articles, and has been in use in this manner much longer than the FJC Bio tag, with no disputes that I know of. Is the CongBio tag also being used in violation of the MOS? A number of Good Articles and even Featured Articles emanating from that project include the virtually identical CongBio template in their External Links section (e.g. John McCain, Jean Schmidt).

On the other hand, I note that some articles use the template under References or Sources (and in some cases I have put the FJC Bio template there to keep it together with an existing CongBio template, there having been a few dozen judges who originated in the Congress, or went there later). I have no objection to putting the template under some heading other than External links, as long as it exists and is used consistently across the articles. bd2412 T 16:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You are aware of OTHERSTUFF? Yes, in many of those cases the templates are being used in contravention of the MOS (I have reverted many people trying to re-add the CongBio template). With the 1911 template, it has been around a longtime, so it is quite likely many of those were placed before the EL guideline that says not to do it in this way may not have existed (in general ELs are poorly maintained in most articles). But I still don't think you understand the problem. The use in McCain is proper, as the CongBio is not used as a source. That's the entire problem we are talking about. If and ONLY if these templates/sources are ALREADY used as a reference, then the template cannot go in the ELs. If it is not used as a source, no problem. Note Jean Schmidt was demoted quite some time ago from FA and is not a good example. As to consistency, that's what we all want, that's why we have Wikipedia-wide guidelines such as WP:EL to help make all articles uniform. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In light of the above, I am moving the FJC Bio link from "External links" to "Sources" in all of the articles that have it now. There are close to 4,000 articles using it, so some help would be appreciated! Cheers! bd2412 T 06:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Layout of the project page

So what's the difference between "To do list", "Tasks", and "Current projects"? Should those all be merged? – Quadell ^(talk) 16:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they should. I copied the format from the too-busy Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, but there is definitely room for condensation and simplification. As I see it, we have five basic tasks:

1. Improving biographies of the judges
2. Improving articles on the individual judicial districts/circuits/specialty courts
3. Improving articles on federal courthouses and court facilities
4. Adding and improving articles on the federal judicial system as a whole and components of its operation (e.g. United States magistrate judge, United States bankruptcy court, Senior status)
5. Creating and improving articles on specific interesting historical nuances (e.g. Gerald Ford Supreme Court candidates, Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies, James Madison judicial appointments, Unsuccessful recess appointments to United States federal courts)

I would think that all of our tasks should fit within one of those parameters, so "To do" could cover anything that "Tasks" could (although perhaps one could refer to specific single articles to be written/improved, while another could refer to an across-the-board change to all articles, like adding images or a new infobox). bd2412 T 18:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all this (although specific court cases or legislative acts, such as Barrett v. United States and the Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure might also be under this purvue. I've added requested articles to Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/needed; do these all seem relevant and important? Perhaps these should also be merged with "To do"? I could imagine "Todo" having sections such as "create", "clean-up", etc.

Also, the current list of related portal is copied from Wikiproject Law, but isn't as relevant here. I would recommend having Portal:Law, Portal:Politics, Portal:Government of the United States, Portal:Biography, and maybe Portal:United States.

Finally, are state courts (e.g. Supreme Court of Ohio) included here as well? – Quadell ^(talk) 19:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree - cases and statutes that are about the federal courts, like Bartlett, and the various Judiciary Acts and other legislation subdividing or creating federal courts, would definitely come under us. Not so sure I would apply that to the Criminal Procedure rules. You are correct about the related portals as well. With respect to the state courts, I had really intended to have this project to be limited to the federal side of things. I have no specific objection to covering state matters, just that they are a whole other world of biographies and jurisdictions. But I suppose if we are to be a project, we must be broad in our reach! bd2412 T 21:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Userbox

There is now Userbox {{User WikiProject United States courts and judges}} -- feel free to improve that box with a better logo. THF (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

How about the federal eagle? (have a look) bd2412 T 19:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I like. THF (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

John Bingham

The article on this person says "Despite being from Ohio, he became a United States judge for several districts of Tennessee", but I FJC has no record of him. Some other articles on the Internet suggest that he was a military judge. Not sure what to do about this. bd2412 T 15:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He was a judge advocate, not a judge. Here's a short bio. THF (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed in the article. bd2412 T 16:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Project name

In my opinion this project is poorly named. Too much of a mouthful, I mean Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress isn't called Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress and Congressmen or something like that. This should just be called Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Courts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.215.35 (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

We can always make U.S. Courts redirect here, which will have the same effect while sparing us the annoyance of having to rename all of the project subpages and categories. bd2412 T 01:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(Done.) – Quadell ^(talk) 15:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Question on commission wording.

Should the entries say that a judge "received commission" or "received his (or her) commission"? bd2412 T 01:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I'd like to see a nice article on Judicial commissions - I don't think linking to Letters patent is quite right. bd2412 T 06:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? (on the original question, I mean) bd2412 T 17:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't have enough experience to know. But Google shows 86,800 hits for "received commission", and 113,000 for "received his commission" (just 9,160 for "received her commission"), so it sounds like using the personal possessive pronoun is slightly favored, but not necessary. So far as "Judician commission" goes, what should the title be? Commissions to the judiciary in the United States? Or just judicial commission (covering all countries)? Or something else? – Quadell ^(talk) 17:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Received commission" sounds vaguely catholic, like "received communion" or "received last rites". (Incidentally, how about Category:U.S. Supreme Court Justices who received holy communion? :) Go with the possessive pronoun. -- Y not? 19:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the letters patent article actually does cover this subject, and even has a reference to Marbury v. Madison; the only problem is that it fails to mention that these "letters" are more commonly referred to as a commission in U.S. practice. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I'd be fine with just improving letters patent. I think the 113,000 Google hits for "received his commission" pretty clearly shows that this form is, at least, acceptable. bd2412 T 20:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

I've just started the outlines of article assessment for this project. Determining article importance is project-specific. The four importance levels are Top, High, Mid, and Low. Different projects assess importance in different ways, some more strictly than others. (For instance, Category:Top-importance United States Government articles has only 2 articles, but Category:Top-importance novel articles has over 100.)

What are our top-importance articles? And what are some guidelines to determine whether a given article is High, Mid, or Low? Below are my thoughts on this.

• In my opinion, top-importance should be reserved for those few concepts and roles that define the project. I think United States federal courts and United States federal judge are obvious members. Other plausible top articles would be United States court of appeals, United States district court, Chief Justice of the United States, and Judicial appointment history for United States federal courts, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and possibly Courts of the United States, but I'm not sure about all these, and I don't think there should be too many others.

• When it comes to people, I'd say all current Supreme Court justices should be high importance, as should many previous assoc. justices and most previous chief justices of SCOTUS. A non-SCOTUS member would have to be awfully notable to be high-importance. Beyond that, I suppose there should be several times more mid-importance articles than low-importance ones. The default is low unless there are some specific reasons to choose higher.

• When it comes to the courts themselves (e.g. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa or United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit), should they all be Mid-importance?

• I think United States Supreme Court building would be high or medium, but most other buildings would be low. Import, U.S.-specific concepts like Recess appointment and Senior status would be high or medium, I suppose. When it comes to lists, only a few lists should be high, I think, though I'm not sure which they should be.

Anyway, those are my first impressions, but I'd love to hear others' opinions on this. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Courts of Appeals are high importance. District Courts will generally be mid, except the S.D.N.Y. and the D.D.C. are definitely high. Can't think of any others that are that important - maybe the N.D. Ill. bd2412 T 17:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What importance are, for instance, Ulysses S. Grant judicial appointments, George H. W. Bush judicial appointment controversies, or Robert Bork Supreme Court nomination? – Quadell ^(talk) 01:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In the big scheme of things, not very. The lists are just lists (useful, but not vital) and Bork was a failed nom. bd2412 T 15:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've been assessing a lot of articles. If anybody has any comments or criticism, I'm all ears. Also, if anyone wants to help assess articles, there are over 1,200 USCJ articles of unassessed quality and over 1,300 of unassessed importance. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Needed merges

As most of you know, Polbot's import spree created a lot of subpages of judges, each of which needs to be either disabiguated or (more likely) merged into the existing article on that judge. To make this easier, I have created Category:Bot-created FJC subpages needing merge action, and I started a botrun to put articles into this category where appropriate. I've only put 16 in, instead of running the bot for all one-thousand-or-so subpages that need merging, so that I could give people a change to respond first and suggest improvements to the process. Have at! – Quadell ^(talk) 14:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that category going to end up duplicating this list? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Good question, shows you're paying attention, but no, they're different. Here's why: only articles that have been matched up to a legitimate existing judge article are in the category. So if there was already a "John Doe" article on a tennis player, and Polbot created a "User:Polbot/fjc/John Doe" article, they don't need to be merged, and that won't be in the category. Also, there is a handy link provided to the actual judge article. Plus they're alphabetized by last name. :) – Quadell ^(talk) 18:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Useful, but I'm dubious about putting "merge with" links atop all the articles. Isn't it enough that we have the list, and are working on it? bd2412 T 18:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the {{mergeto}} templates on the bot-generated subpages are very helpful; but the {{mergefrom}} templates on the linked articles are probably going to be annoying to the vast majority of readers and aren't very useful to the project. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't complain too much if other people were "annoyed" enough to help import the info. :) As point of reference, the subpage-links that Polbot left on talk pages (e.g.) have generated around zero help or responses, so far as I can tell... but the few times I did a dump-merge (e.g.), which affected the look of the article itself, separate users were very likely to help integrate the material. Still, it's treading a fine line: letting people know about the opportunity for improvement, without pissing them off. Thoughts? – Quadell ^(talk) 19:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the {{mergefrom}} templates are unnecessary. We're working on these, and at a pretty good clip. bd2412 T 20:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm convinced. I'll leave that out. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic United States Supreme Court justices

I would like to bring this up for deletion. It's over-categorization and it's just plain unsightly. While the recent catholic prevalence on the Court has been fodder for the New York Times, I don't think this is appropriate here. Would people like to see Category:Roman Catholic murderers or Category:Roman Catholic relief pitchers? Please opine before I list it for general discussion. -- Y not? 15:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And Category:Jewish United States Supreme Court justices -- Y not? 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• If you list them, I will !vote delete. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Category:Jewish United States Supreme Court justices was nominated for deletion two years ago, and even though a majority favored deletion there was no consensus. Then a few months later List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices was nominated for deletion, but again there was no consensus to delete. You can try again, but be careful, it could be a minefield. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

  Well, there you go.  :) I probably would !vote to keep the list but delete the category. The fact that both exist actually makes it more likely that deletion of the category would be approved. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

All I know is that we jews need a chief justiceship stat. Them papists have already had three! -- Y not? 20:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, well we could pretty easily make a list of the Buddhist or agnostic justices -- it would look a lot like the current list of Barack Obama judicial appointments. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Well according to the New York Times (cited in the article), Obama has at least teed up a bunch of judges to nominate. bd2412 T 20:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"He is presently tied with William Henry Harrison for the least number of judicial appointments." That line is fu#king sweet!! :) -- Y not? 20:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• See also Special:PrefixIndex/List_of_Jewish. It's a complex issue. My favorite, of course, is List of Jewish superheroes. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Who are these judges?

Even though the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges is usually pretty accurate, one place it gets a little sloppy is in the "to fill a seat vacated by ______" line. It picks a name for the previous judge, even though it may not be the same name used in that judge's entry (e.g. "George B. Timmerman" vs. "George Bell Timmerman, Sr."), which makes it tricky to match these judges up. Worse, there are frequent errors in the judges' names. Some are minor typos that are easily correctable (e.g. "Susanne B. Conlon" for "Suzanne B. Conlon"), but others are less obvious. Here are a list of judge names, as listed in the "to fill a seat vacated by ______" line of an entry, and the judges I think they probably correspond to. Do these look right? Is there anyone else they might mean?

• Abraham R. Olin - perhaps Abram B. Olin?
• Alston B. Dayton - Alston Gordon Dayton?
• Charles E. Legge - Charles A. Legge?
• Earl E. Larson - perhaps Earl Richard Larson?
• Elisha M. Brewster - perhaps Elisha Hume Brewster?
• Ferdinand Alfred Geiger - perhaps Ferdinand August Geiger
• George C. Fagg - perhaps George Gardner Fagg?
• George William McClintic - perhaps George Warwick McClintic?
• Herman Stephenson Boreman - perhaps Herbert Stephenson Boreman?
• J. Henley Smith - perhaps Jesse Smith Henley?
• John D. Kane - perhaps John L. Kane Jr.? John K. Kane
• John D. Martin - perhaps John S. Martin, Jr. John Donelson Martin, Sr.
• Roger Z. Strand - perhaps Roger Gordon Strand?
• William A. Runyon - perhaps William Nelson Runyon?

There are also 5 judges listed that I can't find at all. Who are these judges? Are they typos, or correct names of judges that we don't have articles for?

• Alan Cox - not the Linux developer
• Fred M. Taylor - not the Marxist economist
• William White - no one at this extensive disambiguation page, I don't think
• David Thew Wright - no idea
• Frederick Pierce Lively (thanks THF)

Any help would be appreciated. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Frederick Pierce Lively is certainly Pierce Lively. THF (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Should be pretty easy to tell by looking at the court and dates of service of the judge you think is the right resolution. For example, Alexander Burton Hagner was on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia beginning January 17, 1879. Abram B. Olin was on that same court until January 13, 1879. So it is pretty obvious that Hagner succeeded Olin. bd2412 T 01:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• "David Thew Wright" is likely a typo for Daniel Thew Wright.
• "Fred M. Taylor" is Fredrick Monroe Taylor.
• "Alan Cox" is a typo for Elijah Allen Cox as best I can tell, since he assumed senior status a year before Clayton took office. THF (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, when a judge assumes senior status, his successor can be appointed. bd2412 T 02:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

William White is a red herring. George Read Sage was appointed to the seat vacated by Philip Bergen Swing. bd2412 T 02:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

All the suggestions in the first list are correct except the two that I crossed out. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much! You guys are awesome. Once I update the Master List of Judges(tm), I'll be ready to use Polbot to create or update lists. What lists could be created or improved in this way? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Every district court article should have a list of the judges that have served on that court (unless the list would be excessively long, in which case it should be a stand-alone article). Those lists should be in a table form indicating the appointing President and dates of active service (and maybe senior service) and should be divided between currently serving judges and past judges. Some of those articles already have lists of the names, but in most cases they are just that - bare lists of names, with no information on dates of service. There are also the lists of judges appointed by president - Abraham Lincoln judicial appointments and so forth. The lists are complete up to Franklin Pierce, and at best spotty from there on. Although it's not directly reflected in the Master List, I'd like to generate a list of people who were both federal judges and members of Congress, divided between those who went from being Congressman to being judges, and those who went from being judges to being in Congress (and I suppose there are rare cases of people who went back and forth more than once). Cheers! bd2412 T 16:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Court evaluations

Starting a subpage for evaluating articles on specific courts. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)